WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 3147
mine worker shall be deemed to be wholly employed in the State of Mary-
land, and entitled to the benefits of this article, if the tipple, mouth or
principal mine entrance in and about which he works, is situated in this
State, notwithstanding such shaft, heading, slope or other subterranean
tunnel may extend underground into an adjoining State, and notwithstand-
ing such mine worker so employed in this State may be killed or injured
while working in said mine beyond the lines of this State, and within the
lines of an adjoining State.
Course of employment.
Where an injury is alleged to have been caused from sting of insect, it is for jury
to say whether it arose out of, and in course of, employment. Function of court
sitting as a jury. Prayers. See notes to sec. 56. Coastwise Shipbuilding Co. v.
Tolson, 132 Md. 205. See also Jewel Tea Co. v. Weber, 132 Md. 178; Bell v. Steen,
137 Md. 392.
Under paragraph 6 of this section and under sec. 32, a claimant is entitled to re-
cover if accidentally injured in course of free transportation to or from his work.
The question of whether an injury arises in course of employment is ordinarily a
mixed question of law and fact; when question becomes one of law. Construction
of English act followed. Harrison v. Central Cons. Co., 135 Md. 176 (decided prior
to act 1920, ch. 456). And see Central Cons. Co. v. Harrison, 137 Md. 258.
Where the deceased was at time he was injured taking home a bandmaster em-
ployed by former's employer to train a band- organized by its employees, it was a
question for jury as to whether his injury occurred in course of, and arose out of,
his employment, within meaning of paragraph 6 of this section. Burden of proof.
Prayers. Thistle Mills v. Sparks, 137 Md. 117.
An injury arises in course of employment under paragraph 6 of this section, al-
though it occurs while employee is leaving a shop by another route than a board-
walk, which latter employees were not required to use. Baltimore Car Foundry Co.
v. Ruzicka, 132 Md. 495.
Case involving whether an aneurism resulted from a blow received in course of
employment. Burden of proof. Evidence. Prayers. Stewart & Co. v. Howell, 136
See notes to sec. 14.
Question whether injury arose in course of the employment and whether employ-
ment was extra-hazardous held for jury; burden of proof. See notes to sec. 56.
Beasman v. Butler, 133 Md. 386.
A man employed early in canning season to do hauling for employer whenever he
might be needed is not a casual employee. How this question is determined. Cases
reviewed. State Accident Fund v. Jacobs, 134 Md. 134 (decided in 1919).
This section compared with art. 93, sec. 138, art. 46, sec. 25 of An. Code, 1912 (as
it stood prior to act of 1916, ch. 325), and with art. 16, sec. 76. An illegitimate child
not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. Scott v. Independent Ice Co.,
135. Md. 349 (decided prior to the act of 1920, ch. 456).
This section referred to in construing secs. 36 and 54—see notes thereto. Adleman
v. Ocean Accident & G. Cor., 130 Md. 576; Accident Fund v. Jacobs' Admr., 140
See notes to sec. 56.
An. Code, sec. 64. 1914, ch. 800, sec. 63.
66. The sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) annually for the
years 1914, 1915 and 1916, or so much thereof as may be necessary annually
for the maintenance of the State Industrial Accident Commission and
the payment of the salaries and expenses of said Commission and its officers
and employes, and so much thereof, if any, as may be necessary to maintain
a solvent State Accident Fund, is hereby appropriated, and shall be payable
on the order or orders of the said Commission from time to time, as in